Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein at a press conference hosted by conservative and business groups in D.C. on Tuesday to oppose granting President Obama fast-track trade authority on the TPP. (Cole Stangler)

Web Only /
Features » January 29, 2014

Hated on the Left, the TPP Draws Conservative Foes

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Most of the TPP critiques were on constitutional grounds: Speakers condemned how fast-track delegates trade negotiating authority to the executive branch and, to a lesser extent, how TPP’s extreme investor protections chip away at American sovereignty by allowing corporations to sue governments in third-party courts. Mixed in with this criticism, though, was a healthy dose of anti-Obama rancor.

“The President said, if you like your health insurance, you can keep it,” says Curtis Ellis of the American Jobs Alliance, a small conservative group based in Virginia that opposes the outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas. “Now essentially, with Obamatrade, he’s saying, if you like your job, you can keep it.”

If “Obamatrade” catches on as a right-wing rallying cry against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—a trade agreement covering the Pacific Rim economies of Australia, Japan, Malaysia, among others—it will probably have something to do with a sparsely attended press conference on Tuesday in the House Science Committee hearing room. That’s where the American Jobs Alliance and the United States Business and Industry Council—pro-business groups wary of trade’s impact on America’s national interests—joined with Tea Party Nation and the socially conservative Eagle Forum to rail against the TPP and President Obama’s support for “fast-tracking” the measure. The legislative procedure would prevent Congress from amending the agreement once it’s completed by international negotiators. Without fast-track, Congress is considered unlikely to approve the deal in its current form.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came out against the existing fast-track bill, but that doesn’t quite mean it’s dead. A “yes” vote in the House could put enough pressure on the Senate to take action or legislators could choose to craft a gentler version of the bill that appeals to Reid—one that allows more time for debate, for example.

Most opposition to the TPP has come from the organized Left, which worries that “NAFTA on steroids” will undermine key environmental and health protections and hasten the flight of good-paying jobs abroad. Earlier this week, a coalition of more than 550 different labor unions, environmental groups and consumer advocacy organizations condemned fast-track in a letter to Congress. That’s in addition to Reid and the 151 House Democrats who came out against the procedure in November. By contrast, only 23 House Republicans have done so.

But the Obamatraders hope to light a fire under Congressional Republicans. Tuesday’s proceedings were transmitted live on a conference call to several Tea Party groups and local affiliates of the 9/12 Project—an organization founded by Glenn Beck and named for the moment of patriotic unity that followed September 11, 2001.

From the beginning of the conference, it was clear the coalition is targeting voters and elected officials whose politics vary substantially from its temporary allies on the Left. “Before we get started this afternoon, I thought it might be appropriate that we take a moment of silence to honor a friend that has passed away,” Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips told the audience.

For a fleeting moment, I think he is about to pay homage to Pete Seeger, the iconic communist folk artist who passed away earlier in the day. But then Phillips finishes the sentence.

“Global warming,” he says, to laughter.

Most of the TPP critiques were on constitutional grounds: Speakers condemned how fast-track delegates trade negotiating authority to the executive branch and, to a lesser extent, how TPP’s extreme investor protections chip away at American sovereignty by allowing corporations to sue governments in third-party courts. Mixed in with this criticism, though, was a healthy dose of anti-Obama rancor.

“He has lied to the American people time and time again—Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, the list goes on,” Philips said. “We can’t trust Barack Obama to negotiate a good deal or be truthful to the American people about it.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), the only congressman in attendance, stressed that he’s not against free trade in theory. Nor is he actually opposed to the TPP, as he clarified when asked by In These Times. Broun, in fact, has voted for four separate FTAs with Colombia, Panama, Peru and South Korea.

“As an original intent constitutionalist, I believe very firmly in that idea of free and open trade,” Broun said. “But fast-track authority is a problem, particularly with this President. We’ve seen him over and over again make promises … someone who has not been truthful certainly should not have this fast-track authority.”

Glyn Wright, executive director of the Eagle Forum, the organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly and best known for fighting the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, shared those concerns. But her reservations about the TPP have more to do with her Christian faith than her lack of faith in Obama.

“Some of the countries in this partnership are notorious for their prosecution of Christians,” Wright said. “In Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam, Christians and clergy are harassed at every turn, spies attend almost every Christian gathering, and Brunei’s constitution even states that the religion of Brunei shall be the Muslim religion—which means that Islamic sharia law supersedes all other law. … Why are we looking to merge our economies with countries that represent the absolute antithesis of the American way?”

Taking another tack, Ellis of the American Jobs Alliance, who has an aversion to multinational corporations that can come off as vaguely anti-capitalist at times, argued that this isn’t even about “free trade.”

“This is essentially protected markets granting monopoly power to certain large corporations—Mousewitz, Disney—so that Mickey Mouse will live forever,” Ellis tells In These Times, in a reference to the TPP’s intellectual property chapter. “It’s managed trade to grant privileges to the corporatist insiders who have lobbyists, who are sitting at the negotiating table and have access.”

Within the larger scope of the conservative movement, or of business lobbyist circles, the coalition represents a small minority with limited political power. Despite its portentous title, the U.S. Business and Industry Council is no Chamber of Commerce—it represents companies committed to the “national interest,” not the agenda of large multinationals intent on maximizing global profits. The Eagle Forum, a couple of decades removed from its heyday, is no Heritage Foundation. The latter, which maintains considerable sway over House Republicans, has praised the TPP and other free trade agreements. (Heritage did not respond to a request for comment on this story.)

TPP opponents, though, will take support from wherever they can get it. Basic arithmetic dictates that blocking fast-track requires a substantial chunk of Republican votes in the House.

“Opposition to the TPP is growing daily, as more people are learning about its disastrous consequences,” says Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who has helped lead Democratic opposition to the deal. “Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, it’s clear that the TPP is [a] sell-out to foreign corporations that will gut our manufacturing base, and make our trade deficits soar.”

Cole Stangler writes about labor and the environment. His reporting has also appeared in The Nation, VICE, The New Republic and International Business Times. He lives in Paris, France. He can be reached at cole[at]inthesetimes.com. Follow him @colestangler.

I'm wondering (as a Tea Party conservative opposed to TPP) which values of mine you so disagree with. I'm for following the US Constitution. Keeping most of the fruits of my labor (and my labor in my experience is significantly greater than my mostly liberal coworkers (union shop)). Giving money to charity as opposed to the "government" confiscating it then doling it out as they see fit. Taking responsibility for my own actions. I have one daughter who works twice as much as her two siblings, I don't make her pay more towards her phone bill just because she makes more money. And, Leaving other people alone to do as they please as long as they don't ask me to pay for their actions. (the only place I waver from that last point is on abortion, and for two reasons, 1. I have a friend who was adopted and thanks God that he wasn't aborted. 2. A fetus is clearly just a less old child (no matter how one tries to rationalize) and I can't abide killing an innocent human.)

Posted by Daniel Mosher on 2015-06-16 11:10:44

God Bless the 23 anti-Obamatrade Republicans

Posted by OHDisqusNSA666100 on 2015-06-01 16:57:10

Please listen to the Presidents speech in Oregon with Nike.

Posted by Quicksilver on 2015-05-08 14:25:40

Now your talking solutions to our purchased system, at least ones that have significant impact.

Posted by TechZilla on 2014-11-03 18:43:25

I'd vote yes on a limit, but don't you for a second believe such feckless action will impede the will of established capital.

Posted by TechZilla on 2014-11-03 18:42:16

Although the 2 political parties differentiate themselves through culture war that inflames voters enough to keep them voting, the REAL issues of governance are much less contentious in the halls of power, where money and revolving door careers from globalized corporations buys the leadership of both parties. That's where the Free Trade policy came from, and they've never been richer than they are now --offshoring America's productive economy and sovereignty have been extremely profitable. But at the grassroots level, if we could put aside the stupid culture wars over contraception and gay rights, we might be able to find our way back to a common national interest and common national identity that would replace Free Trade with a BALANCED TRADE POLICY:

Members of the Tea Party on the grass roots levels went to Republican Congresspeople's town hall meetings during the long Labor Day holiday weekend, and warned them not to vote for war, unless they wanted to be primaried.

Also there is this:

'FreedomWorks, one of the largest Tea Party organizations, has come out against the war. Grover Norquist has been increasingly skeptical of his party’s hawks. So have some older conservative movement figures like David Keene, recently of the American Conservative Union and the National Rifle Association, and Richard Viguerie.

Some of these organizations and activists have a lot of sway in Republican primaries, others are helpful for campaign fundraising. All of them have the potential to create a lasting conservative foreign-policy debate, as opposed to a neoconservative monologue.'

The Right has never met a war they didn't like. It was the Left, with its potential for mass demonstrations, that stopped an invasion of Syria. The Right may flirt with being against war for awhile, but it is much too in love with the military, with authority and with its own demagogic style to support anything progressive.

Posted by REDDAVENYC on 2014-02-04 13:43:34

I find, constantly, that I have little in common with Tea Party people. Their values, strategies, tactics, ideas, leaders, etc., are completely different from mine. When we have the same position on an issue, my experience is that the confluence is based on different values, etc., and this "coming together" is short lived. Every time I have seen some kind of apparently unity, it comes apart as soon as any attempt is made to unite.

Posted by REDDAVENYC on 2014-02-04 01:14:14

"One of the worst things the Left can do is to every make common cause with the Right."

I disagree. There's power in numbers. I read the Tea Party emails, and THEY'RE concerned about many of the same issues as the left: Abuse of power by big government, unconstitutional laws, and government actions. We can unite on specific issues.

When the left and the Tea Party unite on an issue, I think ANY politician would have a hard time resisting them. That's PEOPLE POWER! Let's have some more of this!

Posted by Alan8 on 2014-02-03 10:01:20

Keeping these crooks in office for 50 years is not an option. We MUST implement public funding of campaigns, which would be (overall) cheaper than private crony funding after adding the costs of payola.

Posted by jacklohman on 2014-02-03 07:48:08

Term limits will only make the revolving door revolve faster.

Posted by Kevin Schmidt on 2014-02-03 01:59:27

If you remember, it was a Republican Congress who passed NAFTA. Clinton just signed the bill.Both the Democrats and the Republicans in DC want to pass TPP. It is the PEOPLE on the left AND the right who have come together as one to stop it, just as they stopped the US Government from going to war against Syria, and risking WWIII with Russia.

Posted by Kevin Schmidt on 2014-02-03 01:55:53

Except that this time the two cars are going in the same direction and are both headed straight for Congress, who is driving a Pinto with a full tank of gas.

Posted by Kevin Schmidt on 2014-02-03 01:52:16

Sounds to good to be true, NAFTA was a joke and now we have the son of NAFTA. Not a good idea, look at all of those great jobs created here. Maybe if you are a green card visa employee, for others the job creation will not be there. I worked with TRA/TAA programsd and it is not sweet.

Posted by 6384601 on 2014-02-02 08:55:27

From the establishment of the Bank of International settlements in 1931 to the TPP today this is about establishing international corporate law and the subversion of local democracies - this is an ongoing effort by highly concentrated trans Atlantic wealth and if it fails there will be another initiative to replace it.

Posted by Anarco Soma on 2014-02-01 22:43:50

One of the worst things the Left can do is to every make common cause with the Right. Any confluence between Left and Right is approximately like two cars sideswiping each other while going in opposite directions.

Posted by REDDAVENYC on 2014-02-01 12:09:03

Clinton could have stopped NAFTA (which was passed on fast-track), and he certainly could have stopped the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was done solely on his watch. Obama could have stopped ObamaTrade, or at least opened the negotiations to public scrutiny, but he did neither. He owns this trade bill, as he does the TAP. The Obamapoligists are scrambling for ways to alleviate the cognitive dissonance that is sweeping their ranks as a result of this bill. I hope their heads explode!

Posted by Pete Soderman on 2014-02-01 10:30:29

I don't know if the TPP is good for us or bad for us, the 99%ers. But I'd feel a lot better if I knew that politicians were not getting a piece of the action (in campaign bribes). My gut says it is bad... worse than NAFTA ... but ... cash works. Only a voter-mandated term-limit in November will correct it.

Posted by jacklohman on 2014-02-01 10:16:21

This is one deal that should be stopped not good for workers in the US

Posted by tunaman13212 on 2014-02-01 10:12:32

I agree to Andrew's main point.

As a side issue, it is another example of anti-Obama, pro-Republican bias in the mainstream mediathat TPP is frequently reported as "President Obama's trade bill" as analternate name for TPP. The Associated Press was literally doing this in the past 2 months, particularly when fast track was a front page issue when that billwas introduced a few weeks ago. If they would follow basic research principalsand journalistic honesty they would explain that the U.S. role in TPP beganno later 2008 with active participation from the trade representatives in the W. Bush Administration.

Secondly, mainstream media have plenty of experts who know that ultra powerful 1% type, Deep Forces are the rockin' type of fellers that are behind the history of implemented and proposed trade agreementsthat involve the United States.Yet they omit this information in their reports on proposed trade agreements and NAFTA.

Related to these side issues is the general attribution of the proposed Trans Atlantic Partnership (TAP) in the mainstream media as if it was President Obama's original idea. He had zero trade agreement experience of any kind prior to his service in the U.S. Senate where he may have learned from designated experts about the benefits and harms of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements in order to make informed decisions to prepare to vote on proposed agreements. There is an entire trade agreements industry in Washington D.C., among other places. that concocts these things. That is where the TAP bill is from and why it eventually was included in his 2013 SOTU address. He relies on certain experts and specialists in the fields of trade agreements, U.S. economics and commerce, and international economics to make any decisions about proposed trade agreements. It is the Deep Forces that dominate these fields, mainly Republican but also substantially "New Democrat", that are the problem.

This general misrepresentation is similar to sticking the Clinton Administration with almost exclusiveaccountability for NAFTA because it was passed during his tenure. NAFTA was created by and very, very fiercely moved forward as a hot priority by the H.W. Bush Administration.

I know about these facts because I worked in the international trade field for more than 6 yearsin the 1990s and the 2000s.

Posted by JUSTJEFFBRENNAN on 2014-01-30 11:18:39

Talk about "right for the wrong reasons."

My opinion is this: if conservatives sabotage the TPP, I'll accept that as a victory. The Chamber of Commerce-types who helped empower the Tea Party have lost control of their Frankenstein monster and it's amusing whenever it happens to collide with the neo-liberal agenda. I wrote a blog post years ago documenting how the Tea Party often avoided the issue of free trade despite using "globalism" and "New World Order" as a bogeyman. Now that the TP is becoming more consistent in its anti-globalism, we might as well take advantage of it.